hectffandomcom-20200214-history
CAPACITY and RESOURCES
VI. CAPACITY AND RESOURCES VI.1. Capacity –broad definition · Technical: To evaluate the extent of HEC · To select how to mitigate HEC – choose various methods · To mobilize communities · To bring together all the stakeholders · To develop effective tools · To implement the tools for HEC mitigation · To gather technical and financial to implement selected strategy VI.2. Introduction: Technical: Quick evaluation techniques to be adapted for understanding the HEC. The capacity is very poor to evaluate. Need a format for evaluation. Chronological documentation and spatial database (GIS maps) needed. VI.3. Management/people related issues 3.1 Lack of capacity · In assessing HEC · In addressing HEC · In mitigating or in availability of/selecting tools to mitigate 3.1.a. Capacity building · At various government levels, within various departments, villages and conservation organizations · Village administration: A critical factor – conflict and mitigation steps succeed only with their involvement. · Local political parties/peoples representatives · Implementing authorities – lack of training in dealing with incidents, communication, mitigation, resource utilization, knowledge, ele behaviours, lack of coordination/collaboration etc. 3.1.b. Awareness · Lack of awareness among individuals, local governments, development planners, international multi & bi lateral Aid agencies, NGOs and other implementing agencies about impacts of HEC. 3.1.c. Public and government · Decreasing tolerance levels among humans. Changes in value system – with economic change influencing social and cultural values. '3.2. Lack of cooperation' This is a major constraint in HEC mitigation and that needs to be addressed in a very serious manner through awareness and capacity building. 3.2.a. Within communities · Lack of coordination and cooperation among communities – need cohesion. Problem with a minority of the community, not necessarily the entire village, for example. Diversity of ethnicity, religion, socio-economics can lead to differences in opinions and challenging in conflict resolution and mitigation actions. Degree of influence of HEC on communities leads to disparity in action. · Local political parties influence actions and results in non-cooperation. · State of leadership in the community can influence collective action. · Conflict of interest between members within communities. - HEC affected communities in each elephant range district need a common 'voice-raising platform' through media channel and must be encouraged to be instrumental with the media in taking their HEC problems to the govt. NGO's role in empowering the HEC affected communities is important as it can train the communities to understand why a balanced unity within the communities is important in HEC mitigation process and what the communities can do together to assist the forest department in reducing the conflict between the communities and elephants. 3.2.b. Between communities and government Differences in perception and consequences of conflicts between the two stakeholders leads to conflicts. · Relations between the two is influenced by leadership qualities in the community. · Mutual benefits/trade off between HEC and NTFP collections, influencing relations between communities and implementing agency. 3.2.c. Between NGOs and government Sometimes operate in isolation. Need to establish trust and cooperation. Commom goals between NGOs working in different sectors (wildlife and human rights) and government – involving both nature conservation and human benefits. The govt. in the elephant range states in India must cooperate the NGO initiatives for HEC mitigation through capacity building approach with a broader vision keeping in view that the sensitive HEC issue needs to be controlled through a joint effort by the govt and NGOs. The forest department authorities must encourage the NGO participation in the HEC mitigation activities, like habitat improvement project, capacity buildling training and field support for the communities and forest staff without showing any biased attitude towards foreign-govt sponsored HEC mitigation projects of the NGOs. 3.3. Lack of resources · Who actually needs to address HEC, to whom, and who needs to pay for it? Legal and social issues. · Government should be the key player '''(with effective participatory approach). o Kinds of resources. o Social and Corporate responsibility, local level foundation/trust. o Individuals should take responsibility for their own safety. o HEC mitigation stepping stone to Joint Wildlife Management – participative management between communities and government. o Local management systems specific to areas need to be recognized. o Need to develop a mechanism to pay for HEC mitigation action. o Collective action · '''Microfinance: o Sustainable. Bangladesh model. o Communication – cell phones; loans for electric fence, underground storage, etc.; cooperatives – contributions by individuals in cash or kind; · ' 'Education: o Strategy: Quick evaluation techniques. o Development of simple and robust data collection protocol for current events. Ecosystems India and Nature Conservation Foundation, India and..will coordinate and develop this for all Asian Elephant areas in collaboration with NGOs in the countries. o Compilation and processing of data available with the forest department/village panchayat/government representative. o Data collection and analysis through HEC committees formed at village level. o Policy to assess HEC and regular record keeping. o Identify HEC hotspots. o Daily reporting of HEC through wireless/mobile following Corbett National Park Model. · Chronological documentation and spatial database (GIS maps) needed. o Forest department should be encouraged to do this on a regular basis based on the above assessment of HEC. o Simple village level maps with HEC information should be developed by the forest department. o Non-availability of/selecting tools to mitigate · ' 'Develop national HEC network with toll free helpline services. · Psychological ‘training’ o Attitudinal change through ‘art of living’ training in building/enhancing tolerance levels towards elephants and reduce HEC. o Confidence building strategies between communities, the government and other stakeholders. · ' 'Alternative source of income o Develop alternate income generating strategies during HEC periods or as livelihood alternatives by local NGOs and forest department. o In case of human death in a family, provide employment. · Identify HEC hotspots 'through regular assessments and develop specialized strategies to deal with the issue. o Collaboration between government agencies, NGOs and communities to identify hotspots and develop mitigation strategies. · ' 'Microfinance:' o NGOs help form and facilitate formation of groups. o Provide capacity building o Follow up training/capacity building/proposals/accounts o Extend loans to purchase mitigation equipments o NGOs provide mechanism to establish credit worthiness of affected communities. · ' 'Education o Continuous outreach to convey moral support and caring o Development of education/training unit in government agencies to build capacity among communities and within the agency. o Training teachers and other educators to bring about attitudinal and behavioural changes towards elephants in youngsters and locals using active learning techniques. Zoo Outreach Organisation along with other NGOs in Asian Elephant range countries will develop the model, conduct training and disseminate teaching methodology. o Wildlife conflict and management should be included as integral part curriculum of school and college education. o Train people in escape methods in emergency HEC situation through compilations in manual o Education in appreciation of nature and wildlife with a view towards creating or improving attitudes towards elephants in HEC areas. · ' 'Capacity Building o In assessing HEC § AsESG must develop simple protocol for assessing HEC in Asian Elephant range countries. · Compile a manual on the science and techniques of HEC assessment (by AsESG). § Assessing HEC hotspots protocol must be developed by AsESG. · Global, regional and local level hotspots manual must be developed by AsESG along with local NGOs and forest department. § Train the forest department staff in daily reporting systems of HEC. o In addressing HEC § Forest department sharing best practices in mitigating HEC with communities. · Taking communities to areas with best practices.5 · Development of best practices manual with regular reviews by the AsESG at the global level. · Development of best practices manual with regular reviews by the forest departments at the local level. § NGOs to develop community leadership through training in mitigating HEC. · Develop education materials · Conduct community leadership training · Develop application forms for compensation and training in filling forms. · Train forest department in mitigation methods · Inform forest department in elephant movements and HEC occurrences. · Train in mitigation techniques to local communities. · ' '' Non-availability of/selecting tools to mitigate' o Provide technical training to communities in appropriate mitigation methods. E.g. maintaining electric fences o Train women in mitigation strategies and maintenance o Train children in appropriate preventive practices o Train people in escape methods in emergency HEC situation · ' 'Identify HEC hotspots ' o Conservation Himalayas in collaboration with other willing organizations and AsESG will develop a protocol to determine HEC hotspots in all Asian Elephant range countries. · ' 'Alternative sources of income' o NGOs and forest department must be trained in community outreach regarding alternate livelihoods or income generation appropriate for the area. o NGOs provide training in alternate livelihoods as well as provide mechanism to market. · ' 'Microfinance: o NGOs build capacity to existing SHGs or build capacity to start new ones. o NGOs must interact with banks and commercial organizations to support SHGs and cooperatives o Build linkages between credit institutions and SHGs. o Linking SHGs with government departments such as agriculture, horticulture, veterinary, etc. o Linking SHGs with research organizations where there is mutual benefit and cooperation in carrying out research activities.